Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation

AU - Walmsley, Anthony

AU - Lea, Simon

AU - Landini, Gabriel

AU - Moses, AJ

PY - 2008/9/1

Y1 - 2008/9/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was: "Does power-driven pocket/root instrumentation offer a clinical advantage over hand instrumentation"? Secondary aim was to update knowledge base of power-driven instrumentation post Tunkel et al. (2002). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search of power-driven instruments (in vitro, in vivo and controlled clinical trials) was performed from April 2001 using similar criteria to Tunkel et al. (2002). Primary outcome was whether power-driven instruments offered an advantage over hand instrumentation; secondary outcomes were effect on root surface, effectiveness of new instrument designs, and role of biophysical effects such as cavitation. RESULTS: From a total of 41 studies, 14 studies involved comparison of power-driven devices with hand instrumentation for non-surgical therapy. These were subdivided into new designs of power instrumentation, full-mouth debridement and irrigation and patient acceptance. Use of power-driven instrumentation provides similar clinical outcomes compared with hand instrumentation. Difficulty of pooling studies continues to hinder the drawing of definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: Newer designs of powered instruments have not shown any benefit when compared with other ultrasonic devices in non-surgical periodontal therapy. New in vitro research shows there is variation in the performance of different tip designs and generators, but its clinical relevance remains unknown.

AB - OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was: "Does power-driven pocket/root instrumentation offer a clinical advantage over hand instrumentation"? Secondary aim was to update knowledge base of power-driven instrumentation post Tunkel et al. (2002). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search of power-driven instruments (in vitro, in vivo and controlled clinical trials) was performed from April 2001 using similar criteria to Tunkel et al. (2002). Primary outcome was whether power-driven instruments offered an advantage over hand instrumentation; secondary outcomes were effect on root surface, effectiveness of new instrument designs, and role of biophysical effects such as cavitation. RESULTS: From a total of 41 studies, 14 studies involved comparison of power-driven devices with hand instrumentation for non-surgical therapy. These were subdivided into new designs of power instrumentation, full-mouth debridement and irrigation and patient acceptance. Use of power-driven instrumentation provides similar clinical outcomes compared with hand instrumentation. Difficulty of pooling studies continues to hinder the drawing of definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: Newer designs of powered instruments have not shown any benefit when compared with other ultrasonic devices in non-surgical periodontal therapy. New in vitro research shows there is variation in the performance of different tip designs and generators, but its clinical relevance remains unknown.

KW - power driven instrumentation

KW - scaling and root planing

KW - periodontal therapy/non surgical

KW - systematic review

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01258.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01258.x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 18724839

VL - 35

SP - 22

EP - 28

JO - Journal of Clinical Periodontology

JF - Journal of Clinical Periodontology

SN - 0303-6979

IS - 8 Suppl

ER -